1. Title, director and release year? Homotoxicus, Carole Poliquin, 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of “Homo Toxicus” is that toxic chemicals should be eliminated from our lives because disastrous effects are surfacing as a result of exposure to even trace amount of the chemicals. The film argues we live in an environment increasingly saturated in chemical toxicity. This toxicity exists and thrives all in the name of progress. The EPA estimates the average American interacts with 100,000 chemicals per day, a number shockingly large yet regretfully a very conservative (inaccurate) estimate.
The film includes case studies on communities throughout Canada living in high toxcification. Experienced consequences include childhood ADD and hearing disorders, low sperm counts in men and decreasing male populations. Beyond those, more extreme cases Poliquin also connects the high chemical pollution issues to "everyday" Americans and Canadians. The film documents her own personal exploration as she receives a blood toxin analysis discovering over 110 toxins in her blood. If a Canadian, highly aware and environmental activist harbors over 110 chemicals in her blood I'm frightened to discover the toxin levels of the averagely unaware and loosely regulated American blood stream.
Along with the questioning "progress", the film also questions our definition of "normal". Our modern day chemical invasion is normal. Poliquin is advised not to worry, the chemicals in her body are "normal toxins" at "normal levels". When it becomes normal for mother's to die of breast cancer, fathers unable to reproduce, and 4th grades wearing hearing aids perhaps our definition of normal chemical levels will change.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
-Pervasiveness of Toxins: The director does an excellent job of drawing out the several ways by which we are trapped by toxins; for example, in a portion of the film, she goes around the house and simply names the many items that contain chemicals which have proven toxic to humans and/or animals. In doing this, the viewer realizes the matrix of issues surrounded by the lack of regulation of new chemicals and how inevitable contamination really is.
-Research Organizations: (FDA, EPA) exist to protect humans from products or substances potentially harmful to humans that corporations may of lost sight of in the search for profit. Research organizations are safety nets that double check just to be sure anything a consumer is permitted to buy from a corporation can't kill or harm them. After all, corporations exist to progress our standards of living, right? Sounds like an organizationally sound system. Research organizations are puppeteer ed by none-other than the chemical industries (not humans) they work to protect. These organizations are not safety nets but deceptive nets that encourage the mentality that if it's made it to the grocery shelf than it can't kill me. Case and point an interviewee from the film draws out is the (de)regulation of bisphenol A or BPA. BPA particulate matter is regulated in Canada at .23 ppt while it has found to be harmful at 50 ppb. He continues to point out that the 12 industry studies conducted on BPA have all found no health problems related to the chemical. This example illustrates the political contaminates in the researching organization which pollute and alter research results, masking potential health issues.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The director does an excellent job of drawing out the several ways by which we are trapped by toxins; for example, in a portion of the film, she goes around the house and simply names the many items that contain chemicals which have proven toxic to humans and/or animals. In doing this, the viewer realizes the matrix of issues surrounded by the lack of regulation of new chemicals and how inevitable contamination really is.
I also really enjoyed the Toxic Buffet portion that took place on a common street while pedestrians walked by. It was interesting to see people’s reactions and the questions they posed like, “Well if we don’t eat this, then what do we eat instead?”
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was disappointed with the lack of solution provided by the director, granted a solution for such a matrix of problems is not a simple one. However, this film left me with a sense of hopelessness, that we were too far in to change our ways and any changes we attempted would have to be drastic. So, the ending could have been better.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
This film took place in Canada, therefore, it pertained to the local issues of Canadians. I would like to see a film like this pertaining to the United States, who I’m assuming follows similar (or even lower) standards than those of Canada. Also, for comparison, I would like to see the regulations followed by countries that provide its citizens with healthcare and if there is a correlation at all.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? Homo Toxicus appeals to people who prefer to reduce their risk of dying of a chronic disease. The movie is also especially appealing to people with an interest in medicine. Professionals in the health care field will have to deal with the increase in sexual deformities as well as the increase in chronic disease on a regular basis.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Independent researching organanizations - University of California at Berkeley student
movement to Precautionary Principle "toxins must be proven innocent" from Smart Regulation Approach of corporate driven risk management "all substances are innocent until proven guilty."
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Again, this was one of those more fatalist types of films. I am a staunch supporter of points of intervention in these sorts of films. The viewer needs to leave the film with some optimism.
Homotoxicus, Carole Poliquin, 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of “Homo Toxicus” is that toxic chemicals should be eliminated from our lives because disastrous effects are surfacing as a result of exposure to even trace amount of the chemicals. The film argues we live in an environment increasingly saturated in chemical toxicity. This toxicity exists and thrives all in the name of progress. The EPA estimates the average American interacts with 100,000 chemicals per day, a number shockingly large yet regretfully a very conservative (inaccurate) estimate.
The film includes case studies on communities throughout Canada living in high toxcification. Experienced consequences include childhood ADD and hearing disorders, low sperm counts in men and decreasing male populations. Beyond those, more extreme cases Poliquin also connects the high chemical pollution issues to "everyday" Americans and Canadians. The film documents her own personal exploration as she receives a blood toxin analysis discovering over 110 toxins in her blood. If a Canadian, highly aware and environmental activist harbors over 110 chemicals in her blood I'm frightened to discover the toxin levels of the averagely unaware and loosely regulated American blood stream.
Along with the questioning "progress", the film also questions our definition of "normal". Our modern day chemical invasion is normal. Poliquin is advised not to worry, the chemicals in her body are "normal toxins" at "normal levels". When it becomes normal for mother's to die of breast cancer, fathers unable to reproduce, and 4th grades wearing hearing aids perhaps our definition of normal chemical levels will change.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The director does an excellent job of drawing out the several ways by which we are trapped by toxins; for example, in a portion of the film, she goes around the house and simply names the many items that contain chemicals which have proven toxic to humans and/or animals. In doing this, the viewer realizes the matrix of issues surrounded by the lack of regulation of new chemicals and how inevitable contamination really is.
I also really enjoyed the Toxic Buffet portion that took place on a common street while pedestrians walked by. It was interesting to see people’s reactions and the questions they posed like, “Well if we don’t eat this, then what do we eat instead?”
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was disappointed with the lack of solution provided by the director, granted a solution for such a matrix of problems is not a simple one. However, this film left me with a sense of hopelessness, that we were too far in to change our ways and any changes we attempted would have to be drastic. So, the ending could have been better.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
This film took place in Canada, therefore, it pertained to the local issues of Canadians. I would like to see a film like this pertaining to the United States, who I’m assuming follows similar (or even lower) standards than those of Canada. Also, for comparison, I would like to see the regulations followed by countries that provide its citizens with healthcare and if there is a correlation at all.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Homo Toxicus appeals to people who prefer to reduce their risk of dying of a chronic disease. The movie is also especially appealing to people with an interest in medicine. Professionals in the health care field will have to deal with the increase in sexual deformities as well as the increase in chronic disease on a regular basis.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Independent researching organanizations - University of California at Berkeley student
movement to Precautionary Principle "toxins must be proven innocent" from Smart Regulation Approach of corporate driven risk management "all substances are innocent until proven guilty."
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Again, this was one of those more fatalist types of films. I am a staunch supporter of points of intervention in these sorts of films. The viewer needs to leave the film with some optimism.
Citations:
http://www.homotoxicus.com/english/index.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/thelens/2009/homotoxicus/
http://chemicalsoup.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/review-of-homo-toxicus-a-documentary-film-by-carole-poliquin/